Payroll

ET4Bs Winter 2018 Newsletter

Posted by David on February 11, 2018
Flexible Benefits, HMRC, News articles, Payroll, Status, Termination Payments / Comments Off on ET4Bs Winter 2018 Newsletter

ET4B’s Winter Newsletter 2018 looks at some of the more pressing matters currently on our, and our clients’ agendas.

One aspect affecting nearly all employers is the changes planned on treatment of employment termination payments. Upon implementation the changes are now being justified on a robust agenda of ‘fairness and clarity’, with the previous pretences of extra ‘simplicity’ and tax-neutrality having been dropped.  This presents the prospect of more work for employers and more tax/NIC to pay (for almost every employer and employee).

A few specific points of interpretation in respect of the new termination payments rules have very recently (14 February 2018) been clarified by HMRC in its February 2018 Employer Bulletin.

Firstly, HMRC has confirmed that payments made on or after 6 April 2018, but relating to a termination before that date, would fall under the ‘old’ rather than ‘new’ rules.

Secondly HMRC confirms that genuine redundancy payments (whether statutory, or non-statutory i.e. at enhanced rates agreed between employer and employee) should not be looked at under the new Post Employment Notice Pay rules i.e. they will still qualify for the £30,000 exemption. This is consistent with existing treatment which in effect goes as far back as the ‘Inland Revenue’ Statement Of Practice 1 of 1994 – so it would been a major disappointment if HMRC had decided to take a more stringent view here.

Finally the Employer Bulletin does confirm that the proposed withdrawal of Foreign Service Relief on termination payments from 6 April 2018 is still intended, but remains subject to further Parliamentary Approval.

Other than termination payments, the Newsletter looks at other hot topics concerning the government’s ongoing concern on employed v self-employed status, the increase in HMRC minimum wage reviews, changes in tax treatment of flexible benefits (or Optional Remuneration Arrangements to use the current terminology), possible changes to the way employee expenses are treated, and the proposed further uplift in taxation for diesel company car drivers.

We trust you find the Newsletter of interest. If you think we can assist, on these or any other employment/worker related matters, please of course contact us contact us.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

IR35 obligations where personal services are provided to Public Authority clients

Posted by David on February 28, 2017
HMRC, News articles, Payroll, Status / Comments Off on IR35 obligations where personal services are provided to Public Authority clients

There will be new ‘IR35’ rules to consider from 6 April 2017, where individuals provide their personal services to a Public Authority client via their own Personal Service Company (PSC). The planned changes apply for all payments made on or after 6 April 2017, whether or not the service etc was provided before that date.

The new obligations may be summarised as follows:

–           Firstly it is essential to decide whether the contract falls within the new rules, i.e. is the contractor supplying their services to a Public Authority client, as opposed to someone else (not always easy to tell, especially if there is a chain of contracts), and are they providing a personal service in doing so? NB: the stated definition of a Public Authority body is one which is required to respond to ‘Freedom of Information’ requests, but many smaller or subsidiary bodies are not actually sure if this applies to them.

–           If so, then the Public Authority client must make a decision whether or not ‘IR35’ applies i.e. would the worker be their own employee if none of the other ‘intermediary’ structures existed in the engagement chain?

–           If IR35 applies, the Public Authority must either withhold PAYE/NIC in full (accounting for this under RTI) or inform anyone else paying the PSC, in order that the payer may itself observe that obligation (the latter may apply if payments are routed through an employment business or agency to the PSC).

In making decisions on IR35 matters, HMRC expects the Public Authority to be able to rely on its new online digital status tool (which seems highly optimistic given that the tool was only made public by HMRC on 2 March, and there have been many signs in the ‘beta testing’ phase that the tool lacks robustness ). Whilst this digital HMRC tool may ultimately prove to be a useful guide, the distinction between employed and self-employed status remains a non-statutory test, so an effective working knowledge of employment case law is likely to be required.

This in itself assumes that the Public Authority will know enough about how the contract operates in order to make these decisions. Whilst HMRC insists that the IR35 rules are not being tightened fundamentally, all those in the contractual chain will need to have an operational understanding on these new procedures, as well as effective exchanges of information, to avoid PAYE/NIC simply having to be operated ‘by default’. This would inevitably cause upward pressures on the costs of the contract, if only for the fact that employer’s NIC would be due from the payer.

The most recent HMRC guidance also says that if the worker does not provide their services via a PSC, then the new rules don’t apply. Perhaps misleadingly, this guidance omits to say that more onerous obligations apply if the payer is a non-compliant Managed Service Company (MSC). In practice it may be very difficult to distinguish between a PSC, a compliant ‘umbrella’ payroll, and a non-compliant MSC, so specialist advice may be needed in cases of doubt.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Inflexible benefits from April 2017?

Posted by David on October 04, 2016
Expenses and benefits, Flexible Benefits, HMRC, News articles, Payroll / Comments Off on Inflexible benefits from April 2017?

Now that the summer holiday period is over, it is (unfortunately) time to return our focus to work matters, and this inevitably includes recognition of any changes which HMRC has in the pipeline for us. In fact we have identified at least one such recent proposal which could prove to be a real banana skin, for both HMRC and employers.

In August 2016 HMRC announced a consultation on salary sacrifice arrangements (including flexible benefits). In brief, this document indicates that HM government has decided there are only certain types of flexible benefits which it ‘approves of’ (primarily contributions to registered pension schemes, employer provided childcare, and ‘cycle to work’ schemes). The consultation proposes that (from 6 April 2017) all tax advantages for any other benefits provided via salary sacrifice (which include for example company cars and health screening), would in effect be reversed.

It is our view that these proposals are very significantly misguided, both in principle, and as regards the proposed ‘solution’ which we do not believe will work effectively in practice. The proposed timescale is also much too short given the significance of the changes proposed.

Is there a rationale for change?

The consultation expresses a reasonable concern as to the extent to which tax/NIC duties are ‘lost’ to the Exchequer, as a result of salary sacrifice or flex schemes, but unfortunately that is where the common sense appears to begin and end. HMRC’s attempts to ‘quantify’ the extent of the problem seem to consist of a survey (designed and conducted by HMRC for its own purposes), and the fact that HMRC’s salary sacrifice clearance team is a bit busier than it used to be. The latter is more likely explained by the greater centralisation of HMRC resources, as well the publicity given to other statutory alterations which may be relevant (e.g. changes to dispensation rules). No attempt seems to have been made to quantify objectively the number of schemes which have been withdrawn or phased out in recent years, which is surely part of any overall balanced picture.

In our experience, by far and away the main employer saving is achieved when salary sacrifice is implemented to pay pension contributions, i.e. something which HMRC does approve of and would be unaffected by the proposals. Most other arrangements tend to generate minimal savings for the employer. Overall we feel the consultation downplays the real reason why most such schemes are introduced, i.e. as a legitimate employee recruitment and retention tool, and focuses simply on the perceived cost to the Exchequer.

The rest of HMRC’s reasoning contains a number of very questionable assertions around the loss of state benefits for claimants and possible knock-on effects for the tax/universal credits systems. It is true for example that some employees very close to National Minimum Wage cannot participate, but this is so for all salary sacrifice arrangements (including the ones HMRC ‘generously’ approves of).

What is the solution proposed by HMRC?

The solution proposed is, unfortunately, even more half-baked. The idea is that, to identify arrangements caught under these rules, there would be a simple distinction between a benefit an employee can choose, and one which the employee has no choice in (the latter being unaffected). Where the benefit (of a type which is not ‘approved’ by HMRC) has been chosen by the employee via salary sacrifice, the taxable sum would be the higher of the normal benefit calculation and the sacrificed salary.

In principle this seems both a complex and an incorrect approach. The idea of the employee being taxed on what they could potentially have received, rather than on what salary and benefits they do actually enjoy seems wrong fundamentally. It will create the exact opposite of the level playing field HMRC says it wants. For example, in the (extremely common) situation where an employee takes a simple option for a company car rather than an alternative cash allowance, presumably the proposal would now make the cash allowance the taxable sum, if higher than the company car benefit.

Furthermore we don’t believe the proposal will work in practice. Changes to contracts may be achieved by a myriad of methods, including situations where the employee appears to have no choice in the matter (but may have?), and cases where the employee is ‘opted in’ without their explicit agreement. In trying to over-simplify something which can be extremely complex in nature, we believe a system would be created which most employers (and probably HMRC) would not really understand and hence fail to comply with in practice. From our own experience we have seen numerous instances where even the Big-4 accountancy practices have failed to grasp what is involved in actually implementing an effective contractual change.

We can also foresee a number of practical problems. Not all employer’s systems (whether payroll, or other internal or external systems are used) recognise or display sacrificed salary, and indeed some agreements are almost ‘silent’ and date back several years (perhaps even to the date the employment commenced). In practice, how will any additional reporting requirement be identified and met in such cases?

Ultimately we suspect that employers who can obtain the best advice will be able to work around these problems, and in many cases it may be possible to protect the existing tax/NIC treatment with careful planning. Other employers will not be so lucky, and we would not envisage any employer would feel comfortable at the time of their next Employer Compliance Review by HMRC.

What is the alternative?

If HM government does genuinely perceive a real issue with salary sacrifice, we would suggest the only realistic alternative is to consider the benefits in kind legislation itself. For example in the case where a specific statutory exemption applies, it would be possible to alter that exemption if implemented in conjunction with salary sacrifice. You may recall the government has already dealt with matters on this basis in previous years, when abolishing the ‘home computer scheme’, also in revising the ‘mobile telephone’ and ‘workplace canteen’ exemptions.

Where the benefit is being taxed already we would suggest HMRC should reconsider, and pause for a sense check here. Why should for example a company car be taxed any differently where salary sacrifice is involved? The CO2 basis of company car taxation seems to have been very successful over the years, in helping to drive down vehicle emissions, and we completely fail to see why anyone should want to alter this now.

Timing problems

We believe there could be very significant employer cost and compliance implications if the changes as proposed were indeed adopted on 6 April 2017. Apart from necessitating an update to any flexible benefits policy document, the systems implications could be great (this would potentially include payroll, and any other system which is used to record and monitor flex or salary sacrifices). Does HMRC think such changes can happen overnight, without any material cost implications? Where the benefit is agreed between employers and employees on a longer term basis (e.g. a company car taken on a 4 year lease) this cannot be cancelled at short notice without significant additional costs for all parties. We therefore find it difficult to believe that HM government genuinely wishes to bring in any changes within such a short and arbitrary timeframe.

We would be interested to receive your own feedback in relation to these proposals.

If you wish to discuss this further, to understand how the changes may affect your own arrangements, or if you would like ET4B to contribute toward your own response to the consultation (which should be submitted by 19 October 2016), please contact us.

Tags: , , , ,

ET4Bs Top Ten tips for PSA submission

Posted by David on July 14, 2016
Expenses and benefits, HMRC, News articles, Payroll / Comments Off on ET4Bs Top Ten tips for PSA submission

 

 

ET4Bs Top Ten tips for PSAs_2016

This document provides helpful guidance on PSA completion matters (this is a 2016 updated version of ET4Bs  earlier PSA guidance document)

 

Tags: , , ,

Update on voluntary payrolling of benefits from April 2016

Posted by David on February 15, 2016
Expenses and benefits, HMRC, National Insurance, News articles, Payroll / Comments Off on Update on voluntary payrolling of benefits from April 2016

HMRC has recently set out the framework by which employers will be able to collect tax voluntarily on specified benefits through payroll thus avoiding (or very substantially reducing) the annual P11D return cycle.

From the outset

Decide which benefits you wish to payroll: Employers may elect for some but not necessarily all benefits to be payrolled, e.g. to include medical benefits but not company cars. Many employers see this a way of ‘easing themselves in’ to the new process, especially if HMRC does experience any teething problems.

Also note that the election will cover the whole of a particular section of the P11D; so that if for instance you use Section M of the P11D to record two or more different types of ‘Other’ benefits, you would need to be sure that all such benefits (previously included within that P11D section) can now be payrolled.

Benefits which specifically cannot be payrolled are: vouchers and credit cards/tokens, employer provided living accommodation, and beneficial loans (currently sections C, D and H of the form P11D).

Are there any employees you wish to exclude? The presumption is that all employees receiving benefits within that ‘P11D section’ will now be payrolled, unless HMRC is told otherwise. Whilst it is possible to tell HMRC if you need to exclude particular people, it remains to be seen how effective HMRC is in recognising any such exclusions.

Make your election in good time: HMRC requires the employer to register before the start of the tax year – this can be done via the online ‘PAYE for Employers’ service. Employers who have informally payrolled benefits in the past are still required to register as this previous process is being phased out.

Another point to note is that you can’t change your mind part way through the tax year.

If you decide you want to ‘opt out’ for a future tax year (having previously opted in) you would need to inform HMRC before the start of that new year.

Removing benefits from tax codes: Once you have made the election, HMRC states that they will remove the benefits in kind, previously included within each employees’ tax coding, automatically. This may prove to be an interesting conundrum for HMRC, if say the tax coding currently includes two or more P11D items under the generic description of ‘benefits in kind’ (one of which is now payrolled and the other one isn’t) and we wait to see if HMRC’s systems are subtle enough to detect the difference.

Tell the employees: Although the latest HMRC guidance says that you ‘must’ provide employees certain information at the outset, we cannot see that requirement reflected within the new Regulations. Nonetheless any sensible employer would be well advised to let employees know, i.e. before the employees start to receive their updated tax codings (and before they notice the changes to their payslips). Whilst HMRC does suggest sending a letter to affected employees, the department does acknowledge there is no required or set format for such notifications, and the employer will generally choose the method which is most effective for them e.g. email, intranet, separate notices on pay statements etc.

During the year

Tax the benefit via PAYE: You must include the relevant benefit as an amount which is subject to PAYE tax, but not NIC, and spread this over each payment period of the year. Of course this is not an actual payment in cash so, in payroll terms, the easiest way of ensuring the correct calculations may be to also include the benefit as a net pay deduction.

Maximum PAYE deduction is 50% of pay: Employers must ensure the maximum PAYE deduction of 50% of pay is not exceeded. Note that the benefit is a deemed rather than an actual payment of income; so the 50% maximum must be applied to the pay before the deemed benefit is added in. Most employers will probably rely on their payroll software supplier to spot any potential issues here. In practice we can envisage some potential issues in cases where employees are on unpaid sick or maternity leave (i.e. where their benefits in kind continue).

Dealing with leavers: The employer should include the cash equivalent of the benefits within any P45 taxable pay to date figure.

HMRC does also confirm that the employer may adjust the final pay period(s) of leavers, to ensure that, as far as possible, the employee pays the correct amount of tax on the benefit up to the date of leaving. If such an adjustment is not possible before the employee has left (e.g. there is no further payment due), there are two choices; either the employer adds the ‘untaxed’ element of the benefit to  taxable pay and enters this on an amended FPS, but without adjusting the taxable pay to date, and sends this to HMRC advising the employee has left, or the value of benefit not collected via payroll must be returned on form P11D. Whichever of the two option is chosen, HMRC’s current guidance is that the department will itself seek to recover the unpaid tax direct from the employee.

Other ‘in year’ benefit changes: If for instance an employee changes their company car during the year, the employer would normally calculate the actual benefit for ‘car 1’ plus the estimated benefit for ‘car 2’ (both calculations reduced as appropriate for days unavailable). Any benefit value not already taxed would then be spread over the remaining pay periods of the year.

HMRC does acknowledge there will be occasions where the ‘correction’ is not processed before the end of the tax year, and in these circumstances will accept that any sum not taxed in ‘year 1’ can be taxed in ‘year 2’. NB: the Regulations appear to be drafted on the premise that the employer will always know about such changes instantaneously, however in reality that may not always happen (e.g. in a large organisation where information cannot always be shared immediately between departments). We would therefore hope that HMRC will apply some common sense and latitude here.

Correcting calculation mistakes made: Similarly HMRC accepts the occasional recalculation will be necessary e.g.  where the estimated number of paydays or actual benefits have been calculated wrongly. The same might apply if a company car fuel benefit applied which had not been recognised and payrolled (e.g. because an employee failed to make good the full private fuel as expected). Again some amount of year end cross-over is permitted so that any benefits not payrolled in ‘year 1’ can be payrolled in ‘year 2’

At the year end

Employee information: The new Regulations do confirm that the employer should include the cash equivalent of the benefits within any P60 year end figure. The timescale is the same as for forms P60 (i.e. 31 May following the year end), and it is assumed that most payroll software will be able to incorporate any necessary data on the form P60 itself.

Forms P11D will of course still be required for any benefits which were (for whatever reason) not payrolled.  Many sections of the current form P11D incorporate a section showing ‘amount made good or from which tax deducted’, however this is not so for company car or fuel benefits, hence we assume the P11D form will either be reworded or further HMRC guidance issued.

Submit form P11D(b) and pay Class 1A NIC: As only PAYE tax has been collected via payroll, the employer’s NIC obligation will be largely unchanged. As things stand, forms P11D(b) must still be submitted by 6 July following the end of the year, with the Class 1A NIC remaining due and payable by the following 19 July date.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

HMRC updates to booklet CWG(2) – transparency or opacity?

Posted by David on June 09, 2015
Expenses and benefits, News articles, Payroll / Comments Off on HMRC updates to booklet CWG(2) – transparency or opacity?

HMRC has recently published its latest annual update to its booklet CWG(2), i.e. the Employers Further Guide to PAYE/NICs, for the year 2015/16.

The CWG(2) does tend to retain the same basic paragraph and section numbering year on year, and it occurs to ET4B how easy it would be for HMRC to flag up or highlight any updated sections (within this and other updated guidance). Indeed it is difficult to fathom why the department does not opt to highlight changes to this (92 page guidance), clearly and directly?

Some of the main changes to the booklet would appear to be as follows (the page and paragraph numbers of the guide are shown in brackets for reference):

  • Details of the new 0% rate applying to certain employer Class 1 NICs, for employees under the age of 21, are now included (page 6, para 4).
  • Some of the examples scenarios potentially applying, when the regular date for employee pay is on a non-banking day, are now elaborated upon (page 9, para 4).
  • Guidance on Lump Sum payments from pension schemes (page 19, para 20) now refers to the more general use of the “Uncrystallised Funds Pension Lump Sums” (UFPLS) terminology, following changes in the rules permitting access to defined contribution pension funds.
  • Guidance on workers supplied by agencies has been developed, in an attempt to reflect some of the new and additional PAYE/NIC obligations for  onshore (page 51, pre-para 110) and offshore (page 60, para 125) agency workers.
  • For PAYE due on employment related securities and similar non-cash payments, the guide now reflects the recent legislative change that PAYE not recovered within 90 days of the end of the tax year now constitutes a benefit in kind (page 82, para 161). The previous 2014 version reflected the old rules where PAYE had to be made good within 90 days of the receipt of the non-cash payment, to avoid the benefit charge.

Tags: , , , , ,